Another non-sequitur from nerdham. So we are creationists now? Ad hominum attacks do nothing to advance your argument. Please address the points made and don't try to change the subject.

Nerdman, why is the strength of the floors so important? And even if it is - WHAT ABOUT WTC 7? WTC 7 was of different construction. Different construction means different mechanisms for its progressive collapse. No plane hit WTC 7. Fires were light and confined a few floors.

I believe in evolution. It makes perfect perfect sense and it is the hypothesis that best fits the facts. Telling us that the floors were only designed to hold their own weight is simply incorrect. When you get on an elevator that says no more than 16 people it is actually designed to hold 4 times that many. Floors are overdesigned as well. Someone can correct me, but I think the tower floors could support several times their own weight, certainly double.

However much weight the floors could support is largely irrelevant to the argument that I and others are making.

Read this: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/

they-lied-about-trusses.htm

And then tell us about the floors, the floors, and then tell us again about the floors. While you are it, I wish you could fill us in on the floors.

What about the central core? It was massive, and not damaged significantly if at all. If the pancake theory is correct why did not at least a small section of the core remain standing?

And please tell us about the dinosaur footprints in the basement - I mean the molten metal. Or don't you believe in that either? And do not tell us that that little data point is irrelevant! The molten metal is a fact on the ground, no one disputes it, there are videos, testimony, yada yada. So what was it, and where did it come from? Explain please. I really want to know. Pancaking floors, even ones that can "support only their own weight", do not generate sufficient heat to produce molten metal. No amount of aviation fuel will produce molten metal.

You said the strength was in the frames Nerdham. This incorrect too, the core was the central load bearing structure.

Earlier you refused to comment on any of my assertions stating that they were irrelevant. How is your logic different from a creationist who discounts evidence that does not correspond with their beliefs?

I did not wake up on September 11, watch the towers fall and say, "This must have been the secret government, I must find evidence." I was brought to this point because I have not yet received any explanation much better than your "it's the flimsy floors" guess. I won't dignify it by calling it a theory. A theory explains the facts, and you are critically short of those in your argument.

You should listen to abc, he/she is very smart and is just trying to get to the truth, as much as that is possilble in Bushworld anyway.

Nerd/turd suspends both disbelief and the laws of physics. No modern building has ever, under any circumstances other than controlled demolition, collapsed in such a symmetrical way. I don't claim to know who did it, but those building were demolished from within, not by a few floors of jet fuel induced flames. Speaking of flames, what an asshole.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Quote:

The computer has allowed engineers to reduce the mass of a structure by its ability to more accurately determine the load bearing capability of structural framework. Years ago before the computer, builders were not sure of a structural elements load bearing capability, so they over built by using a so called “safety factor”. This built in safety factor could result in a structure with twice the required load bearing strength. Because of computer calculation this no longer occurs. The older buildings use to have built in a so called “safety factor” of two-to-one. Not so today, if the building code requires a load bearing factor of 40 pounds per square foot that is exactly what you get. There is no margin for error.

end quote from the fire chief.

Thus if the floor above falls on the floor below, the floor below can't hold both and pancaking will occur. In the WTC towers, the floors were bolted on to the outside frame. These joists were the only thing that held the floors up. There were no other columns or anything else holding up the floors. Thus when the floors went, there was NOTHING to stop them and they fell practically at the speed of free fall.

Furthermore, the only thing that tied the frame together were the floors themselves. The floors stiffened the outside frame and allowed it to stand. Once the floors detached from the frame, the struture at that point completely disintgrated.

The central core did not in any way hold the building up. The OUTSIDE walls were the load bearing surfaces. When see pictures of the WTC rubble, you can see sticking out what sort of looks like giant sized grille work. That is part of the outside frame which actually held the building up. I assume the central core simply disintegrated.

I keep repeating all of this because it is an absolutely key point that needs to be understood. Once you understand the structure of the building, you can readily understand why it collapsed and you can see why it is complete nonsense to say that only explosives could have taken down the building.

Occam's razon cuts through bullshit. How symmetrically, how predictably, how infallibly the floors fell, one on the other, so the whole building collapsed in its own footprint. No leaning, no variance, no delay. Bull. Shit. Explain how the WWII plane flew into the Empire State Building and NOTHING happened. Or was that an urban legend? I'd rather not believe the towers were brought down, but I cannot buy it. I won't even fucking rent it. PNAC fascists needed Pearl Harbor Deux, and they created it. Only that explanation fits with both 9/11 and subsequent events.